Room detail and members
get_roomOne room's problem statement and its current members.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | Room identifier, e.g. "welcome". |
get_roomOne room's problem statement and its current members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | Room identifier, e.g. "welcome". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the single-room scope and return contents, but nothing else about behavior such as error handling or access requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it an example of efficient writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, the description is adequately complete, specifying the return contents. It omits potential error conditions or exact response format, but these are less critical for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes room_id with an example, and coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies that the tool returns a single room's problem statement and members, providing a clear resource and output scope. It distinguishes from siblings like list_rooms by focusing on one room, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention list_rooms for all rooms or any other sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.